Thank you. This is by far the best and fullest analysis of the history and the reasons for objecting to the arch I've encountered. "F*** Donald Trump" will have no effect as a public comment, but points from this piece are indeed substantive.
This is what i submitted, based closely to your suggestions:
"This Monument to Mr. Trump is a further disgrace that he wants to place on our great nation! There are numerous issues with this Trumpian Monument:
1. The sightline is irreplaceable. The Lincoln Memorial, Arlington Memorial Bridge, the Memorial Avenue Corridor Cultural Landscape, Arlington House will be blocked by this monstrosity. Placing a 250-foot structure on the deliberate axis between them destroys the integrity of setting, feeling, and association that gives those properties their National Register significance. The NPS itself has stated that sees an adverse-effect finding and argue that no mitigation in a Programmatic Agreement can restore a permanently obstructed view.
2. If something has to go forward, let it be in keeping with the entire area and memorials surrounding it. We need substantially different and real alternatives, not just mitigation. The Section 106 process requires the agency to explore alternatives that genuinely avoid or minimize adverse effects before accepting them. Argue that the Draft Programmatic Agreement is premature and that a legitimate “no-build” alternative and alternative siting locations must be analyzed before any decision document is signed. Try a 70-foot tall structure as originally envisioned by the designer.
3. Has NEPA been fully evaluated and enforced as it is intended to be for such federal projects? A project of this scale, height, and documented public controversy warrants an EIS rather than a simpler categorical exclusion, and the Section 106 process must be completed before any NEPA decision document (a Finding of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision) is finalized.
4. The Commemorative Works Act and the CRS finding that no previous president sought to build an arch here, and argue that a 1924–25 column authorization for two 166-foot structures cannot lawfully cover a single 250-foot arch that is fundamentally different in scale, form, and purpose.
5. Pedestrian and traffic safety at a high-speed traffic circle. FAA airspace risk at Reagan National, where the administration’s own feasibility study called itself a “limited review” and required a full aeronautical study before construction, should be studied as part of a full NEPA EIS Evaluation . The 1910 Height of Buildings Act, which caps most D.C. construction at 130 feet. Disruption to Arlington’s daily funeral services and the solemn character of the cemetery landscape. Stormwater, tree loss, and landscape disruption in Lady Bird Johnson Park.
You need to stop this monstrosity from moving forward, completely. IF there is enough support to build something there. Consider the above arguments and follow due process to enhance our historic monuments and not overwhelm or over shadow them!!!!!!"
Thank you! With inspiration from your article, I have sent my comments in opposition to this eyesore (an understatement) of a memorial to a convicted criminal.
I submitted a letter to NCR Planning et al. I tried to include all that you mentioned. I certainly hope it does some good. The arch is a gaudy monstrosity (in my opinion)! I don’t want my tax dollars going to the construction of the ARCH OF TRUMP!
Thank you. This is by far the best and fullest analysis of the history and the reasons for objecting to the arch I've encountered. "F*** Donald Trump" will have no effect as a public comment, but points from this piece are indeed substantive.
Done!
This is what i submitted, based closely to your suggestions:
"This Monument to Mr. Trump is a further disgrace that he wants to place on our great nation! There are numerous issues with this Trumpian Monument:
1. The sightline is irreplaceable. The Lincoln Memorial, Arlington Memorial Bridge, the Memorial Avenue Corridor Cultural Landscape, Arlington House will be blocked by this monstrosity. Placing a 250-foot structure on the deliberate axis between them destroys the integrity of setting, feeling, and association that gives those properties their National Register significance. The NPS itself has stated that sees an adverse-effect finding and argue that no mitigation in a Programmatic Agreement can restore a permanently obstructed view.
2. If something has to go forward, let it be in keeping with the entire area and memorials surrounding it. We need substantially different and real alternatives, not just mitigation. The Section 106 process requires the agency to explore alternatives that genuinely avoid or minimize adverse effects before accepting them. Argue that the Draft Programmatic Agreement is premature and that a legitimate “no-build” alternative and alternative siting locations must be analyzed before any decision document is signed. Try a 70-foot tall structure as originally envisioned by the designer.
3. Has NEPA been fully evaluated and enforced as it is intended to be for such federal projects? A project of this scale, height, and documented public controversy warrants an EIS rather than a simpler categorical exclusion, and the Section 106 process must be completed before any NEPA decision document (a Finding of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision) is finalized.
4. The Commemorative Works Act and the CRS finding that no previous president sought to build an arch here, and argue that a 1924–25 column authorization for two 166-foot structures cannot lawfully cover a single 250-foot arch that is fundamentally different in scale, form, and purpose.
5. Pedestrian and traffic safety at a high-speed traffic circle. FAA airspace risk at Reagan National, where the administration’s own feasibility study called itself a “limited review” and required a full aeronautical study before construction, should be studied as part of a full NEPA EIS Evaluation . The 1910 Height of Buildings Act, which caps most D.C. construction at 130 feet. Disruption to Arlington’s daily funeral services and the solemn character of the cemetery landscape. Stormwater, tree loss, and landscape disruption in Lady Bird Johnson Park.
You need to stop this monstrosity from moving forward, completely. IF there is enough support to build something there. Consider the above arguments and follow due process to enhance our historic monuments and not overwhelm or over shadow them!!!!!!"
Extraordinary, thank you!
Thank you for the detailed submission information.
Thank you for this very helpful information
thank you for providing this information. I have sent my comments opposing this project
Thank you for the resource and information. I have also submitted my objection.
The online form was as easy as could be. Thanks for publishing this article
Thanks for the info. Comment submitted.
Thank you, I have submitted my objection.
Done! Thanks for enabling our voices.
Thank you! With inspiration from your article, I have sent my comments in opposition to this eyesore (an understatement) of a memorial to a convicted criminal.
Thank you! I submitted mine today.
I submitted a letter to NCR Planning et al. I tried to include all that you mentioned. I certainly hope it does some good. The arch is a gaudy monstrosity (in my opinion)! I don’t want my tax dollars going to the construction of the ARCH OF TRUMP!
Thank you. Completed with purpose.
thanks for making this easy to do
Done. Thank you.